Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

Caring for high-need patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the construct of "high need" and identify common need domains among high-need patients, their care professionals, and healthcare organizations; and to describe the interventions that health care systems use to address these needs, including exploring the potential unintended consequences of interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi panel informed by an environmental scan. Expert stakeholders included patients, interdisciplinary healthcare practitioners (physicians, social workers, peer navigators), implementation scientists, and policy makers. The environmental scan used a rapid literature review and semi-structured interviews with key informants who provide healthcare for high-need patients. We convened a day-long virtual panel meeting, preceded and followed by online surveys to establish consensus.

RESULTS

The environmental scan identified 46 systematic reviews on high-need patients, 19 empirical studies documenting needs, 14 intervention taxonomies, and 9 studies providing construct validity for the concept "high need." Panelists explored the construct and terminology and established that individual patients' needs are unique, but areas of commonality exist across all high-need patients. Panelists agreed on 11 domains describing patient (e.g., social circumstances), 5 care professional (e.g., communication), and 8 organizational (e.g., staffing arrangements) needs. Panelists developed a taxonomy of interventions with 15 categories (e.g., care navigation, care coordination, identification and monitoring) directed at patients, care professionals, or the organization. The project identified potentially unintended consequences of interventions for high-need patients, including high costs incurred for patients, increased time and effort for care professionals, and identification of needs without resources to respond appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Care for high-need patients requires a thoughtful approach; differentiating need domains provides multiple entry points for interventions directed at patients, care professionals, and organizations. Implementation efforts should consider outlined intended and unintended downstream effects on patients, care professionals, and organizations.

"Less is more": A design thinking approach to the development of the agenda-setting conversation cards for people with type 2 diabetes

Objectives

To report a design-thinking approach to a user-centred agenda-setting tool for use in type 2 diabetes clinics.

Methods

The study followed design-thinking phases: emphasizing, defining, and ideating an intervention, followed by iterative user-testing of prototypes. It was conducted at a Danish diabetes center using observations, interviews, workshops, focus groups, and questionnaires.

Results

Nurses wanted to put more emphasis on agenda-setting in status visits. During brainstorms the idea of using illustrated cards that listed key agenda topics was proposed and became the goal of this research. Adopting a design-thinking approach provided the basis for developing prototypes for iterative user-testing that led to a version that was acceptable to stakeholders. The resulting tool, Conversation Cards, was a set of cards that listed and illustrated seven key topics that were considered important to consider during diabetes status visits.

Conclusion

The goal of the Conversation Card intervention is to support collaborative agenda-setting in diabetes status visits. Further evaluation is needed to determine the utility and acceptability of the tool to nurses and to people with diabetes in routine settings.

Innovation

This novel tool is designed to trigger agenda-setting conversations and thereby prioritize individuals' choice of topics to talk about during diabetes status visits.

Person-centred care in primary care: What works for whom, how and in what circumstances?

This rapid realist review aims to explain how and why person-centred care (PCC) in primary care works (or not) among others for people with low health literacy skills and for people with a diverse ethnic and socioeconomic background, and to construct a middle-range programme theory (PT). Peered reviewed- and non-peer-reviewed literature (Jan 2013-Feb 2021) reporting on PCC in primary care was included. Selection and appraisal of documents were based on relevance and rigour according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) criteria. Data on context, mechanisms and outcomes (CMO) were extracted. Based on the extracted data, CMO configurations were identified per source publication. Configurations containing all three constructs (CMO) were included in the PT. The middle-range PT demonstrates that healthcare professionals (HCPs) should be trained and equipped with the knowledge and skills to communicate effectively (i.e. in easy-to-understand words, emphatically, checking whether the patient understands everything, listening attentively) tailored to the wishes, needs and possibilities of the patient, which may lead to higher satisfaction. This way the patient will be more involved in the care process and in the shared decision-making process, which may result in improved concordance, and an improved treatment approach. A respectful and empathic attitude of the HCP plays an important role in establishing a strong therapeutic relationship and improved health (system) outcomes. Together with a good accessibility of care for patients, setting up a personalised care plan with all involved parties may positively affect the self-management skills of patients. Good collaboration within the team and between different domains is desirable to ensure good care coordination. The coherence of items related to PCC in primary care should be considered to better understand its effectiveness.

Integrated primary care and social services for older adults with multimorbidity in England: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

As the prevalence of older adults with multimorbidity increases, greater integration of services is necessary to manage the physical and psycho-social needs of this cohort. This study describes and summarises current evidence, clinical provision and progress towards integrated primary care and social services for older adults with multimorbidity in England.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted involving systematic searches of a range of electronic academic and policy databases. Articles were screened and extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted onto a charting sheet and thematic synthesis was used to summarise findings. Articles were included if published in English and related to primary care, social care and multimorbidity in older adults in England. Conceptually, the review was framed using the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care.

RESULTS

The search yielded 7656 articles of which 84 were included. Three themes were identified: (1) a focus on individual level services rather than multi-level or multi-sector integration, with an increasing emphasis on the need to consider broader determinants of population health as critical to integrated care for older adults with multimorbidity; (2) the need for policymakers to allow time for integration to embed, to enable new structures and relationships to develop and mature; and (3) the inherent tension between top-down and bottom-up driven approaches to integrated care requires a whole-systems structure, while allowing for local flexibilities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence of multi-level and multi-sector integration of services for older adults with multimorbidity in England. The literature increasingly acknowledges wider determinants of population health that are likely to require integration beyond primary care and social services. Improving clinical care in one or two sectors may not be as effective as simultaneously improving the organisation or design across services as one single system of provision. This may take time to establish and will require local input.

Early supported discharge for older adults admitted to hospital with medical complaints: a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Early supported discharge (ESD) aims to link acute and community care, allowing hospital inpatients to return home and continue to receive the necessary input from healthcare professionals that they would otherwise receive in hospital. The concept has been researched extensively in the stroke population, showing reduced length of stay for patients and improved functional outcomes. This systematic review aims to explore the totality of evidence for the use of ESD in an older adult population who have been hospitalised with medical complaints.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and quasi randomised controlled trials will be carried out in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies will be included if they provide an ESD intervention to older adults admitted to hospital for medical complaints compared with continuing inpatient care. MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and EMBASE databases will be searched. The primary outcome measure will be length of hospital stay, secondary outcomes will include functional abilities, falls, quality of life, carer and patient satisfaction, unplanned emergency department re-presentation, unscheduled hospital readmission, nursing home admission or mortality. Titles and abstracts of studies will be screened independently by two authors. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used independently by two reviewers to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. GRADE will be used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. A pooled meta-analysis will be conducted using RevMan software V.5.4.1, depending on the uniformity of the data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The authors will present the findings of the review to a patient and public involvement stakeholder panel of older people that has been established at the Ageing Research Centre in the University of Limerick. Formal ethical approval is not required for the review as all data collected will be secondary data and will be analysed anonymously.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021223112.

Games of uncertainty: the participation of older patients with multimorbidity in care planning meetings - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Active patients lie at the heart of integrated care. Although interventions to increase the participation of older patients in care planning are being implemented in several countries, there is a lack of knowledge about the interactions involved and how they are experienced by older patients with multimorbidity. We explore this issue in the context of care-planning meetings within Norwegian municipal health services.

METHODS

This qualitative study drew on direct observations of ten care-planning meetings and an interview with each patient right after the meeting. Following a stepwise-deductive induction approach, the analysis began inductively and then considered the interactions through the lens of game theory.

RESULTS

The care-planning interactions were influenced by uncertainty about the course of the disease and how to plan service delivery. In terms derived from game theory, the imaginary and unpredictable player 'Nature' generated uncertainty in the 'game' of care planning. The 'players' assessed this uncertainty differently, leading to three patterns of game. 1) In the 'game of chance', patients viewed future events as random and uncontrollable; they felt outmatched by the opponent Nature and became passive in their decision-making. 2) In the 'competitive game', participants positioned themselves on two opposing sides, one side perceiving Nature as a significant threat and the other assigning it little importance. The two sides negotiated about how to accommodate uncertainty, and the level of patient participation varied. 3) In the 'coordination game', all participants were aligned, either in viewing themselves as teammates against Nature or in ascribing little importance to it. The level of patient participation was high.

CONCLUSIONS

In care planning meetings, the level of patient participation may partly be associated with how the various actors appraise and respond to uncertainty. Dialogue on uncertainty in care-planning interventions could help to increase patient participation.

GP trainee responses to using SHERPA for multimorbidity consultations

UK general practitioner (GP) trainees are taught a consultation model which elicits the patients' main reason for consulting 'today'. This approach will often miss important issues for the increasing number of patients with multimorbidity. We developed the SHERPA model as a person-centred biopsychosocial framework for consulting patients with multimorbidity to address this. We aimed to examine GPs trainees' responses to SHERPA when integrated into their vocational training. The research design was qualitative and participants were GPs trainees in vocational training from one UK training location. GP trainees were introduced to the SHERPA model through interactive workshops. Qualitative data were collected from 16 participants, through four hours of teaching observation, 24 feedback templates, six practical applications of SHERPA and eight one-to-one interviews. Data were transcribed, and, using the Framework approach, systematically analysed, focussing on trainees' learning and application of the model. The results demonstrated that all participants engaged well with the teaching sessions, brought observations from their own experience, and reflected on particularly complex consultations. Half of the participants applied SHERPA successfully with their patients, particularly repeat attenders. Barriers to this approach were: selecting appropriate patients; perceived time pressure; lack of familiarity using the model; viewing SHERPA as 'additional', rather than integral, to shared decision-making in complex situations. The SHERPA model was viewed as helpful by these GP trainees for patients with whom they had established a relationship. Earlier introduction and regular support from trainers, where trainees reflect on experience of SHERPA, could increase confidence in using this method.

Randomised feasibility trial and embedded qualitative process evaluation of a new intervention to facilitate the involvement of older patients with multimorbidity in decision-making about their healthcare during general practice consultations: the VOLITION study protocol

BACKGROUND

The number of older people with multiple health problems is increasing worldwide. This creates a strain on clinicians and the health service when delivering clinical care to this patient group, who themselves carry a large treatment burden. Despite shared decision-making being acknowledged by healthcare organisations as a priority feature of clinical care, older patients with multimorbidity are less often involved in decision-making when compared with younger patients, with some evidence suggesting associated health inequalities. Interventions aimed at facilitating shared decision-making between doctors and patients are outdated in their assessments of today's older patient population who need support in prioritising complex care needs in order to maximise quality of life and day-to-day function.

AIMS

To undertake feasibility testing of an intervention ('VOLITION') aimed at facilitating the involvement of older patients with more than one long-term health problem in shared decision-making about their healthcare during GP consultations.To inform the design of a fully powered trial to assess intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

This study is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with qualitative process evaluation interviews. Participants are patients, aged 65 years and above with more than one long-term health problem (multimorbidity), and the GPs that they consult with. This study aims to recruit 6 GP practices, 18 GPs and 180 patients. The intervention comprises two components: (i) a half-day training workshop for GPs in shared decision-making; and (ii) a leaflet for patients that facilitate their engagement with shared decision-making. Intervention implementation will take 2 weeks (to complete delivery of both patient and GP components), and follow-up duration will be 12 weeks (from index consultation and commencement of data collection to final case note review and process evaluation interview). The trial will run from 01/01/20 to 31/01/21; 1 year 31 days.

DISCUSSION

Shared decision-making for older people with multimorbidity in general practice is under-researched. Emerging clinical guidelines advise a patient-centred approach, to reduce treatment burden and focus on quality of life alongside disease control. The systematic development, testing and evaluation of an intervention is warranted and timely. This study will test the feasibility of implementing a new intervention in UK general practice for future evaluation as a part of routine care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICAL TRIALS.GOV registration number NCT03786315, registered 24/12/18.

The Association of Advance Care Planning Documentation and End-of-Life Healthcare Use Among Patients With Multimorbidity

PURPOSE

Multimorbidity is associated with increased intensity of end-of-life healthcare. This association has been examined by number but not type of conditions. Our purpose was to understand how intensity of care is influenced by multimorbidity within specific chronic conditions to provide guidance for interventions to improve end-of-life care for these patients.

METHODS

We identified adults cared for in a multihospital healthcare system who died between 2010-2017. We categorized patients by 4 primary chronic conditions: heart failure, pulmonary disease, renal disease, or dementia. Within each condition, we examined the effect of multimorbidity (presence of 4 or more chronic conditions) on hospital and ICU admission in the last 30 days of life, in-hospital death, and advance care planning (ACP) documentation >30 days before death. We performed logistic regression to estimate associations between multimorbidity and end-of-life care utilization, stratified by the presence or absence of ACP documentation.

RESULTS

ACP documentation >30 days before death was associated with lower odds of in-hospital death for all 4 conditions both in patients with and without multimorbidity. With the exception of patients with renal disease without multimorbidity, we observed lower odds of hospitalization and ICU admission for all patients with ACP >30 days before death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with dementia and multimorbidity had the highest odds of high-intensity end-of-life care. For patients with dementia, heart failure, or pulmonary disease, ACP documentation >30 days before death was associated with lower likelihood of in-hospital death, hospitalization, and ICU use at end-of-life, regardless of multimorbidity.

Older individuals' views on their personal screening results for complex health problems: a qualitative study

Background

Providing older persons with information about their health status may increase their involvement in their own health and enhance self-management. However, we need a better understanding of how older persons view their personal results after completing a screening questionnaire on complex health, of their (lack of) motivation and their subsequent action.

Methods

In this qualitative study community-dwelling older persons (≥80 years, n = 13) who completed a screening questionnaire on complex health problems were interviewed regarding their perception of the results, the actions they considered taking and their personal motivations. Data were analysed thematically (qualitative content analyses).

Results

Participants expressed interest in feedback, as an objective questionnaire might substantiate their own views regarding their personal health. They were mostly unsurprised by the results and/or had already taken precautions and were therefore not inclined to undertake additional action. They admitted difficulty with and appreciated advice from a professional regarding preparation of an action plan. Unexpected negative results would lead them to discuss matters with family and/or their general practitioner, provided they had a good relationship with their GP.

Conclusion

Older people were interested in direct feedback regarding their screening questionnaire results and in subsequent advice on possible additional measures. General practices could consider inviting older persons to complete a screening questionnaire and discuss activities and personal goals. This information could serve to better shape future interventions aimed at increasing self-management amongst older persons.

Engaging older adults in self-management talk in healthcare encounters: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of complex chronic conditions in older adults encourage healthcare providers to engage patients in shared decision-making about self-management goals and actions. Yet, healthcare decision-making and communication for this population can pose significant challenges. As a result, healthcare professionals may struggle to help patients define and prioritise their values, goals, and preferences in ways that are clinically and personally meaningful, incorporating physical functioning and quality of life, when faced with numerous diagnostic and treatment alternatives. The aim of this systematic review is to locate and synthesise a body of fine-grained observational research on communication between professionals, older adults, and carers regarding self-management in audio/audio-visually recorded naturalistic interactions.

METHODS/DESIGN

The paper describes a systematic review of the published conversation analytic and discourse analytic research, using an aggregative thematic approach and following the PRISMA-P guidelines. This review will include studies reporting on adult patients (female or male) aged ≥ 60 years whose consultations are conducted in English in any healthcare setting and stakeholders involved in their care, e.g. general practitioners, nurses, allied health professionals, and family carers. We will search nine electronic databases and the grey literature and two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to identify potential studies. Discrepancies will be resolved via consultation with the review team. The methodological quality of the final set of included studies will be appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and a detailed description of the characteristics of the included studies using a customised template.

DISCUSSION

This is the first systematic review to date to locate and synthesise the conversation analytic research on how healthcare professionals raise and pursue talk about self-management with older adults in routine clinical interactions. Amalgamating these findings will enable the identification of effective and potentially trainable communication practices for engaging older adults in healthcare decision-making about the self-management goals and actions that enable the greatest possible health and quality of life in older adulthood.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019139376.

Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

BACKGROUND

Older patients with multiple health problems (multi-morbidity) value being involved in decision-making about their health care. However, they are less frequently involved than younger patients. To maximise quality of life, day-to-day function, and patient safety, older patients require support to identify unmet healthcare needs and to prioritise treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for older patients with multi-morbidity aiming to involve them in decision-making about their health care during primary care consultations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; all years to August 2018), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to August 2018); Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to August 2018); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to August 2018); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (Ovid) (1982 to September 2008), then in Ebsco (2009 to August 2018); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases (Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE)) (all years to August 2018); the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (all years to August 2018); the Ongoing Reviews Database (all years to August 2018); and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to August 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of interventions to involve patients in decision-making about their health care versus usual care/control/another intervention, for patients aged 65 years and older with multi-morbidity in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Meta-analysis was not possible; therefore we prepared a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 1879 participants: two RCTs and one cluster-RCT. Interventions consisted of: · patient workshop and individual coaching using behaviour change techniques; · individual patient coaching utilising cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; and · holistic patient review, multi-disciplinary practitioner training, and organisational change. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making' or the primary adverse outcome 'less patient involvement as a result of the intervention'. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and individual coaching, holistic patient review plus practitioner training, and organisational change) to usual care: we are uncertain whether interventions had any effect on patient reports of high self-rated health (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 5.49; very low-certainty evidence) or on patient enablement (mean difference (MD) 0.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 10.43; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Interventions probably had no effect on health-related quality of life (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) or on medication adherence (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably improved the number of patients discussing their priorities (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.38; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably increased the number of nurse consultations (incident rate ratio from adjusted multi-level Poisson model 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect rates of participant death or anxiety, emergency department attendance, or hospital admission compared with usual care. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and coaching, individual patient coaching) to attention-control conditions: we are uncertain whether interventions affect patient-reported high self-rated health (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00, favouring attention control, with very low-certainty evidence; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.52, favouring the intervention, with very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions affect patient enablement and engagement by increasing either patient activation (MD 1.20, 95% CI -8.21 to 10.61; very low-certainty evidence) or self-efficacy (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence); or whether interventions affect the number of general practice visits (MD 0.51, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.36; very low-certainty evidence), compared to attention-control conditions. The intervention may however lead to more patient-reported changes in management of their health conditions (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; low-certainty evidence). Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect emergency department attendance nor hospital admission when compared with attention control. Comparing one form of intervention with another: not measured. There was 'unclear' risk across studies for performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; however, no aspects were 'high' risk. Evidence was downgraded via GRADE, most often because of 'small sample size' and 'evidence from a single study'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited available evidence does not allow a robust conclusion regarding the objectives of this review. Whilst patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a key mechanism for improving care, it is rarely examined as an intervention and was not measured by included studies. Consistency in design, analysis, and evaluation of interventions would enable a greater likelihood of robust conclusions in future reviews.